145 Wash. 2d 103 | Wash. | 2001
Lead Opinion
The issue in this case is whether the facts were sufficient to grant summary judgment based on the equitable doctrine of meretricious relationship. Granting summary judgment for the plaintiff, the trial court held Frank Vasquez (Vasquez) had proved he was involved in a long-term, stable, cohabiting relationship with the decedent, Robert Schwerzler (Schwerzler). The trial court further found the property acquired during the relationship
We hold the trial court erred in resolving this case on summary judgment. The record on summary judgment is inadequate to reach the legal issue presented. It was further error for the Court of Appeals to reach the merits of the case. We vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the superior court for trial.
FACTS
Upon Schwerzler’s death, Vasquez filed a claim against the estate asserting he and Schwerzler had formed an economic community and he was entitled to an equitable share of the property. Joseph Hawthorne (Hawthorne), who was appointed personal representative of the estate, denied the claim. Vasquez filed suit in superior court, asserting his claim under several equitable theories. Vasquez made a motion for partial summary judgment requesting relief under the meretricious relationship doctrine. To decide the motion, the trial court considered several conflicting affidavits of the parties. The trial court made two rulings relevant to this case. First, the trial court determined Vasquez and Schwerzler had a meretricious relationship and the property acquired during the course of their relationship was presumed jointly owned. Second, the trial court awarded some of the property to Vasquez by analogizing to our probate laws (i.e., community-like property goes to the
ANALYSIS
A summary judgment motion under CR 56(c) can be granted only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file demonstrate no genuine issues of material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court must consider all facts submitted and all reasonable inferences from those facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The motion should be granted only if, from all the evidence, reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion. Ellis v. City of Seattle, 142 Wn.2d 450, 458, 13 P.3d 1065 (2000).
The facts of this case are contested through the affidavits of the parties. First, the nature of the relationship between Vasquez and Schwerzler is disputed. Vasquez presents affidavits asserting he and Schwerzler were a same sex couple. The estate offers affidavits contending Vasquez and Schwerzler were not a same sex couple and did not hold themselves out as such. Vasquez offers as proof of their relationship that he and Schwerzler lived together from April 1967 until October 1995, with the exception of two years in the early 1970s during which they lived in different apartments in the same building. The estate counters that no such relationship existed. Although they lived together, Vasquez and Schwerzler did not travel together on vacation and each had his own bedroom.
Similarly, the nature of Vasquez’s and Schwerzler’s business relationship is disputed. On the one hand, Vasquez contends the couple made their living recycling boxes and bags. Schwerzler managed their financial affairs and any remuneration Vasquez earned was contributed to their economic community. On the other hand, the estate argues
On review, we conclude the trial court did not have sufficient undisputed factual information to resolve this case on its merits. From the affidavits, the trial court could not determine what type of relationship existed between Vasquez and Schwerzler. Nor could it conclude what property acquired during the course of their relationship could be subject to equitable division. Without proof of the facts asserted, it was not possible for the trial court to know the character of the relationship between Schwerzler and Vasquez, the nature and extent of contribution to any property acquired by the parties, and what equitable theories are most appropriate. Therefore, we must remand this case for the trial court to review under the various theories Vasquez asserts.
Vasquez presented claims for equitable relief under several theories, including meretricious relationship, implied partnership, and equitable trust. When equitable claims are brought, the focus remains on the equities involved between the parties. Equitable claims are not dependent on the “legality” of the relationship between the parties, nor are they limited by the gender or sexual orientation of the parties. For example, the use of the term “marital-like” in prior meretricious relationship cases is a mere analogy because defining these relationships as related to marriage would create a de facto common-law marriage, which this court has refused to do. In re Marriage of Pennington, 142 Wn.2d 592, 601, 14 P.3d 764 (2000). Rather than relying on analogy, equitable claims must be
Because we remand this case for trial, we need not resolve the evidentiary issues raised by the estate concerning the deadman’s statute. Any objection to specific testimony will be resolved at trial.
CONCLUSION
We vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals, reverse the trial court’s granting of the motion for partial summary judgment, and remand this case for trial. Finally, an award of attorney fees, if any, should be determined at trial.
Smith, Madsen, Ireland, Bridge, Chambers, and Owens, JJ., concur.
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring) — I agree with the majority that we should remand this case to the trial court so that it may consider whether Frank Vasquez can establish any of his claims for relief under the equitable doctrines of implied partnership and equitable trust. I write separately simply to indicate my agreement with Justice Sanders’ view that the meretricious relationship doctrine is unavailable to a party who seeks relief when, as is the case here, one party to the alleged meretricious relationship is deceased. I reach that conclusion because the meretricious relationship doctrine is limited in that the trial court is to apply, by analogy,
On the other hand, the laws of intestacy, RCW 11.04.015-.290, dictate how property is to be distributed when an individual dies without leaving a will. Accordingly, we have held that the meretricious relationship doctrine’s analogy to RCW 26.09.080 does not apply when a relationship between unmarried cohabitants is terminated by death of one cohabitant. Peffley-Warner v. Bowen, 113 Wn.2d 243, 253, 778 P.2d 1022 (1989). Thus, under the circumstances of this case, I would hold that the meretricious relationship doctrine is not an available form of equitable relief. The question of whether the doctrine has application when parties of the same sex separate after having lived together in a long-term stable relationship, we should leave to another day when that issue is properly before us.
For this reason I concur.
This statute provides that “[i]n a proceeding for dissolution of the marriage,... the court shall.. . make such disposition of the property and the liabilities of the parties, either community or separate, as shall appear just and equitable after considering all relevant factors.” RCW 26.09.080 (emphasis added).
Concurrence Opinion
(concurring) — I concur with the majority that summary judgment favoring Frank Vasquez must be reversed on the meretricious relationship claim. However, I write separately to set forth a legal analysis which, in my
I begin by crediting the obvious: summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party establishes he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law without material dispute of fact. CR 56(c).
Therefore for Vasquez to prevail on summary judgment it is necessary to establish, without material factual dispute, the existence of a meretricious relationship. This requires the prima facie presence of several factors:
Relevant factors establishing a meretricious relationship include, but are not limited to: continuous cohabitation, duration of the relationship, purpose of the relationship, pooling of resources and services for joint projects, and the intent of the parties.
Connell v. Francisco, 127 Wn.2d 339, 346, 898 P.2d 831 (1995) (citing In re Marriage of Lindsey, 101 Wn.2d 299, 304-05, 678 P.2d 328 (1984); Latham v. Hennessey, 87 Wn.2d 550, 554, 554 P.2d 1057 (1976)).
At the threshold “we must review and decide whether the trial court [] erred in concluding the facts gave rise to [a] meretricious relationship D at all.” In re Marriage of Pennington, 142 Wn.2d 592, 602, 14 P.3d 764 (2000), As stated in Pennington, this determination is “a mixed question of law and fact,” the proper legal conclusions flowing from those facts being subject to de novo review. Id. at 602-03.
I agree with the majority that many of the traditional factors associated with the existence of a meretricious relationship, at least when considered in isolation, are certainly subject to material factual dispute in the record before us.
However there is one fact, that these individuals are of the same sex, which distinguishes this case from others preceding it. The legal consequence of this undisputed fact is central to the briefing of the parties as well as amici Northwest Women’s Law Center and Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Moreover, it is that fact which
A survey of existing case law, however, leads to the inexorable conclusion that there is only one possible outcome available to the trial court consistent with the law as we have previously defined it: dismissal of Vasquez’s meretricious relationship claim. Notwithstanding, I agree with the majority, and disagree with the Court of Appeals, that remand is more appropriate than dismissal as the issue before us is whether summary judgment was properly granted to Vasquez, not whether summary judgment of dismissal was improperly denied to Joseph Hawthorne. Although Hawthorne obviously recognized the difference, as he set out both alternatives in his notice of appeal, any claim that summary judgment was improperly denied Hawthorne is not now properly before us because Hawthorne did not assign error to the denial of his cross motion. See RAP 10.3(a)(3). Although the court has discretion to overlook this defect (as did the Court of Appeals), State v. Olson, 126 Wn.2d 315, 323, 893 P.2d 629 (1995), it is equally the prerogative of the court to require adherence to its own rules, especially where dismissal of a single claim would not end the case in any event, as is the situation here. This is to say consideration of other theories by which Vasquez might recover would not be precluded by a dismissal of the meretricious relationship claim.
As to the merits of the meretricious relationship claim, I can do no better than defer to the unanimous and thoughtful opinion of the Court of Appeals.
For any claim to be premised upon a meretricious relationship, there must first of course be such a relationship.
The necessary but not sufficient requirement that the cohabiting couple possess the requisite legal ability to wed is quite pronounced. No case holds that even a cohabiting heterosexual couple can successfully establish a meretricious relationship where either lacks the legal entitlement to marry. I therefore posit if that is the requirement for a heterosexual couple, it must equally be the requirement for a homosexual couple.
Our most recent pronouncement on the subject, In re Marriage of Pennington, is instructive. One of the couples there cohabited continually for eight years between 1985 and 1993, although one of those cohabitants lacked the legal capacity to marry during most of that period, since he remained technically married to his prior wife until 1990. The fact of this legal disability to wed was identified on numerous occasions during the course of the opinion and, with respect to an evaluation of the traditional factors, was considered vis-a-vis the intent of the parties to form a meretricious relationship. We made special note that “Pennington was married to a different woman for the first five years of his relationship with Van Pevenage.” In re Marriage of Pennington, 142 Wn.2d at 604. Similarly, the legal consequence of the other couple’s cohabitation was also considered in that same proceeding. There the court also made special comment that “the evidence also established Chesterfield was married to another man during her relationship with Nash. These facts are too equivocal to conclusively establish that the parties mutually intended to be in a meretricious relationship.” Id. at 606. These references, and like references in other cases, to the lawful ability to marry are not mere coincidence. Rather as Connell posits, the basis for distributing property following
Although the presence of all the itemized factors may not be enough, absence of one or more of the factors is fatal, and the element of intent necessarily includes the lawful ability to marry.
Therefore when the majority says, “Even when we recognize ‘factors’ to guide the court’s determination of the equitable issues presented, these considerations are not exclusive, but are intended to reach all relevant evidence,” I agree. Majority at 108. One of those factors to guide the court’s determination is the factor of intent, which includes the lawful ability to marry. This factor must be considered. If the parties have the ability to marry, that does not mean a meretricious relationship exists; however, the inability to marry necessarily means that a meretricious relationship does not exist. The legal ability to marry is therefore necessary but not sufficient.
Equitable claims are not dependent on the “legality” of the relationship between the parties, nor are they limited by the gender or sexual orientation of the parties.
Majority at 107. This statement is literally accurate insofar as it refers to “equitable claims,” which would include implied partnership and equitable trust. Majority at 107. It does not, however, include all equitable claims such as those premised upon a meretricious relationship where, obviously, members of the same sex lack the lawful authority to wed just as much as married people lack the lawful authority to enter into plural marriages, at least in the context of the laws of our jurisdiction.
Two further independent considerations equally point to the inevitable dismissal of the meretricious relationship claim by the trial court on remand.
The first consideration involves the unavailability of the meretricious relationship doctrine to relationships terminated by death. This court has never employed the doctrine to justify a post-demise distribution of property. In Peffley-Warner v. Bowen, 113 Wn.2d 243, 778 P.2d 1022 (1989), we answered the certified question in the negative, “ ‘Would Washington law afford a person in Ms. Warner’s situation the same status as that of a wife with respect to the intestate devolution of Sylvan Warner’s personal property,’ ” id. at 245 (footnote omitted), specifically opining that “[In re Marriage of] Lindsey[, 101 Wn.2d 299, 678 P.2d 328 (1984)] did not expand the rights of a surviving partner in an unmarried cohabiting relationship to the personal property of a deceased partner.” Id. at 252.
The second consideration dictating a similar result is a matter of practicality. Were it not the rule that the lawful ability to wed is a prerequisite to establishing a meretricious relationship, one of the few objective criteria of assistance to the court or cohabiting couples to determine whether such a relationship could possibly exist would simply vanish. Legitimate expectations of cohabiting individuals, whether opposite sex or otherwise, would be de
Certainty in one’s entitlements, as well as the right of one to voluntarily dispose or transfer his or her property in the manner seen fit by the individual, are values promoted by
For these reasons I concur.
